There are multitude of factors that could come into play.
Let us start this discussion with two countries having strictest drug laws, Singapore and Sweden, and they have one of the lower prevalence rates for drug abuse and gang wars..
When it comes censorship, or prohibitory laws, it depends on what is being censored or prohibited. For example, censoring a word such as, F-word (sticking to the norm), which has the same meaning as the word, Coitus, that drew laughs again and again in the show, Big Bang Theory seems unnecessary, if we try to think out that it is just a word as any other word. Further, if we dig in deep into the etymology of the word, it could be traced to 14 - 16th century, and the usage might have started from a name.
Moreover, censoring words and signs could result in Streisand effect, where the censorship adds publicity to the act.
If that were the case, when should we have censorship or stricter laws, for eg. drug laws? We need to take into account the overall impact coming from uncontrolled and unhindered drug use to the society. We also need to take into consideration factors such as, history, culture, accessibility, social and societal impact along with current economic climate while taking decisions in this regard.
For example, as per some estimates, the negative risk impact from drug abuse to the society, is almost 3 or 4 times more than the revenue that it could generate, accounts for, may be, 0.3% of the GDP without taking risk into account, and could employ less than 0.2% of the US population. With this risk to reward profile, what do you think should be the decision?
Originally shared by Christine Felixon